Thursday, December 08, 2005

To judge a political system look at the hallmarks. Hallmarks matter!

The ideal state to all practising Muslims is one based on quranic law, the Shariah; the ideal state to most Westerners is one based on liberal democracy. The hallmarks of both systems of governance are totally different. It is these different hallmarks which render the two political systems totally and utterly immiscible.

Quranic law is believed by the faithful to derive directly from three sources: the Qur'an, the Muslims' holy book (the first source of jurisprudence); the Sunnah, or the way Prophet Muhammad lived his life; and Ahadith, or the sayings of the Prophet, stating what the Prophet approved. The first two sources are indispensable, and no Muslim is able to practise Islam without reference to them.

It goes without saying that quranic law is prescriptive and rigid in the extreme. Furthermore, according to Muslims, quranic laws are valid for all time. There is little scope for revision in them. Punishments that were stated 1400 hundred years ago are to be the same today. Islamic principles and practises are therefore immutable.

Nothing is too great or too small for the Islamic state to interfere in. The state then decrees actions to be haram (forbidden by Allah), or halal (allowed by Allah). Naturally, all those things that Allah is said to have forbidden become matters of illegaility in a country governed by Shariah law. The personal judgment of the judge, or qaddi, plays little part in the interpretation of laws based on the Shariah: The judge is there not so much to interpret the rigid laws, but to ensure that they be abided by, and that sentences and punishments be meted out according to Shariah law.

All power in an Islamic political system rests with Allah, and filters down through his vice-gerents here on earth. Quite naturally, such political systems are utterly dogmatic. Parliamentary aids to deliberation and negotiation are dispensed with; so the whole system soon resembles a dictatorship. There is no room for party politics in a political system based on quranic law. This is surely one of the main reasons why we have seen very little development of democracy throughout the centuries in countries dominated by Islamic culture. This is really no co-incidence. In fact, even where there are more political parties than one, they can only vie with each other to pass this law based on Islam, or that one. Creative political thought and creative interpretation of policies have little or no place in such societies.

In these societies, forces are soon at work to coerce the people to abide by Allah's laws. This goes for the private sphere as well as the public one. One is told how to live one's life, and one has to abide by these rules and regulations, or risk the consequences, which we all know can be grave indeed.

It goes without saying that in such political systems, television, the Internet, newspapers, journals and magazines are all heavily censored, as are films and videos. The state will decide what the people are allowed to have exposure to. Of course anything that is considered to be in any way subversive to the Islamic state is brutally suppressed.

This goes, too, for morality. Quranic law naturally also interferes with people's morals. This is why we hear of women being stoned to death for adultery, people's hands and feet being cut off for theft, and people being lashed for the drinking of illicit alcohol.

Basically, all things which go against the Qur'an or the Sunnah are declared illegal. The hallmarks of the Islamic way are therefore rigidity, censorship, state interference in private lives, ruthlessness in the application of quranic laws, coercion, intolerance, and fear of falling foul of these Draconian laws. The objectives of an Islamic government are in no way limited; of course, such a government ends up being oppressive.

Contrast this scenario with the liberal democratic way. In our system, laws are passed through parliament as a response to needs. As circumstances and the mores of the public change, so do the laws governing the land. We see a very clear example of this in laws governing homosexuality. Even in my lifetime, homosexuality in the United Kingdom has gone from being a jailable offence to one totally tolerated. Indeed, the UK government has recently passed legislation to enable homosexual couples to marry. Laws governing divorce, too, have changed dramatically in my lifetime. Now, divorce is no longer viewed with great disapproval, and couples seeking one find one very quick and easy to obtain.

In a liberal democracy, all power filters up from beneath, from the ordinary people who vote at the polls. The leader is allowed to govern by virtue of the people's choice. G. H. Sabine, in his excellent book, A History of Political Theory described the hallmarks of a liberal democracy today. He had this to say:
The liberal assumption ... is that government can more reasonably be made a matter of continuous consultation, discussion, and negotiation, with frank acceptance of the fact that a state has to content itself with limited objectives and the employment of limited means. It depends on assuming that, though a human community depends on agreement, one useful form of agreement is just agreement to differ. It depends also on assuming that, given intelligence and good will, a concensus can be reached which provides enough agreement to support collective action, and that the latter can be reasonably effective without being oppressive. It makes the generally empirical assumption that open discussion is after all the best test of an idea, and it has therefore candidly to accept the conclusion that politics is intrinsically controversial and its precedures partisan. For entirely legitimate interests even the most homogeneous society in fact often conflict, and again, empiricism leans toward the position of the Common Law, that letting each side state its own case, even at the cost of bias or a degree of mendacity, is after all the best way of getting at the truth or reaching a fair decision. From this liberal point of view a government is first and foremost a set of institutions designed to regularize public reflection and discussion, and the weighing of contrary claims to the end of evolving a workable policy. A government is undoubtedly an organization of power, and Bentham was quite right when he said that law exists to make people do what they would not do without it. But power exerted after a rational weighing of claims is morally different from naked force, and it may well be more intelligent. For human wisdom consists less in certainty than in a built-in corrigibility. ... They [the members of government] presume on the part of government a fair recognition that it acts on a consensus that is almost never complete, and that in acting on the will of the majority, it has still to keep a decent regard for the minorities it does not represent. They presume that government will give to minorities the right to organize and propagandize , that minorities will observe the line between opposition and subversion, and that both sides will observe self-restraint in contaminating the sources of public information. The system requires sincere acceptance of that fact that no party's tenure of power ought to be perpetual, that an organized opposition is a necessary part of a liberal government, and that only legitimate methods may be used to keep it out of power. It requires a set of constitutional institutions to support, and as far as possible to enforce, this kind of political morality. And above all it requires a community with a strong sense of its own solidarity and concern for the public interest, with a generally educated population, and probably with a degree of experience in working the required institutions.
It is clear to see that the hallmarks of a liberal democracy contrast very sharply with those of a political system based on quranic law; moreover, the immiscibility of the two systems of governance should be obvious to all.

©Mark Alexander

12 comments:

Always On Watch said...

The ideal state to all practising Muslims is one based on quranic law, the Shariah; the ideal state to most Westerners is one based on liberal democracy. The hallmarks of both systems of governance are totally different. It is these different hallmarks which render the two political systems totally and utterly immiscible.
One Muslim, from Afghanistan, told me that shari'a law and the rule of civil law can be reconciled. Unfortunately, we were at a dance, and the music was too loud for us to have an in-depth discussion. However, the example he gave wasn't very hopeful (I'm paraphrasing here): "Now, instead of honor killings, since the overthrow of the Taliban, we send the offenders to jail." He seemed very satisfied with his comment, almost bragging about what he sees as the rule of civil law in Afghanistan. But, of course, the offenses themselves are determined by the standards of shari'a law.

Mark said...

AOW:

I stand by what I said: The two systems are totally and utterly immiscible.

Papa Ray said...

You know, people can write and have blogs that are sucessful without using words such as "immiscible".

If you want to get your ideas across to people, use words that everyone can understand.

Dumb it down!

I do not want to have to read a blog that I have to look up words in the damn dictonary in order to understand.

Big words don't do shit, clear communication is the key.

Don't take this personally just stop this crap.

You don't have to prove how smart or educated you are. You have a mission, dumb it down where you will get the readership you need.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Mark said...

Hey there guys, cut me some slack, will you? I use one word that confounds you - sorry, confuses you! - and I get all these insults!

Was the article bad simply because you had to look up one word?

I thought you guys were smart cookies. That's why I never even thought of omitting the word, or even explaining it.

If it pleases you more, these two political systems are like oil and water: they just DO NOT mix!

There! Now you have it!

PS: I use 'big' words sparingly for the very reason that you, Papa Ray, have mentioned. But I certainly don't wish to write in monosyllables either. Sometimes one word can take the place of several. This was such an occasion. By the way, that's what dictionaries are for: to expand the mind, Paps! :-)

Mussolini: Thanks for your compliment.

cybercrusader said...

Papa Ray, I was in Houston for Thanksgiving and heard someone in my family use the word "immiscible" Hence, the word is known in East Texas --- perhaps it has not yet reached West Texas!!!

Mark, Please do not start "dumbing down" your blog. I enjoy reading your blogs because they are so beautifully written and therby are distinguished from most others on the "Net." Furthermore, I learn something about Islam in every one of them. Keep up the good work; keep using words that stretch one's mind and enrich one's vocabulary.

Anonymous said...

I say ditto to all those who do not want your blog dumbed down. I taught myself to read by age 3 by nagging everyone I could to read to me.

I love words--since that early age I have developed a good vocabulary because I always read at least 3-4 grade levels above my age group.

Words are fascinating. If I want something dumbed down, I will turn on the T.V.

You have an excellent blog--keep up the fine work!

Always On Watch said...

I double-checked the meaning of "immiscible," and the definition is as I thought.

And, Mark, I agree with your assessment; I was just relating my encounter with that Afghan, who, by the way, was fighting side-by-side with American forces until he himself was grievously wounded and admitted to Walter Reed Hospital for some eight months.

IMO, the Afghan with whom I spoke was trying some unsuccessful rationalization. He liked what he saw here in the United States and seemed to be trying to figure out how to have both worlds--Western civilization and Islam. He also tried to tell me that Islam was little different from Christianity. I don't buy that one!

Eleanor © said...

immiscible |i(m)ˈmisəbəl| adjective (of liquids) not forming a homogeneous mixture when added together : water is immiscible with suntan oil

This excellent word perfectly explains the stituation in which we find ourselves. We have invited in people that refuse to assimilate whose culture is immiscible. Those have tried to do so are at a quandary: they find themselves in the uncomfortable position of not belonging to either camp. Their rage is understandable, not justifiable.

The two systems can not mix any more than democracy and communicism could mix in the former Soviet Union that characterized itself as a people's republic, replete with the trappings of a representative democracy. Or that of the former Nazi regime that made similar claims. The similarity existed only in their minds.

Muslim Sha'ria law does allow for consultation, but the regulatition based on Koran and ahadith, and the choices of representatives that are "approved" smack of the former Soviet Union and, to my mind, are really not a choice at all.

Mark said...

Thank you all for jumping to my defence!

Papa Ray, you are entitled to your opinion; and I respect it. However, your opinion on this matter is quite different from mine. But be assured of one thing, though: I certainly haven't taken any offence. In fact, I am rather amused that one word should have excited such passion!

I have no intention of dumbing anything down, least of all my vocabulary.

I believe that most people who visit this website would not be happy if I changed the way I write. Some might, of course, but by and large I believe that these people are in the minority.

The Germans have a wonderful expression. I can think of no English equivalent. It goes like this: Man spricht wie es einem der Schnabel gewachsen ist. Translated, this says that one speaks as one's beak has grown! (Meaning: One speaks as one has developed.) I find it a delightful expression: it's so very colourful. Alas, the expression loses much in translation.

In the same way that one speaks as one has learnt to speak, one writes as one has been taught to write, or has learnt over the years to write. It would be foolish for me to try and change that, I believe, since if I had to be mindful of each and every word as I write, the overall effect would be contrived. That's not good for any writer.

I have been heartened by the way that many of you kind folk have jumped to my defence on this matter. I appreciate all your support.

Papa Ray: This is not the forum for 'mall speak', and I think that deep down even you would be dismayed if I were to begin writing in that manner. Further, I doubt that I would keep my many visitors that way, either.

For me, writing is something which must come from the heart. It must be something almost automatic.

Like Heather, I, too, love words. The greater one's vocabulary is, the greater one's capacity for understanding concepts. This is part of the fun of words.

Always On Watch said...

Judahq,
If the Afghan believes the Islamic misrepresentation of Christianity then he probably doesn't know just how much difference exists between the two.
I think you're correct there. He was very forthcoming as to how much untruth he had been taught from childhood with regard to what Americans are like. He was very curious about Christianity, but we didn't have the right atmosphere for a discussion because of all the racket coming from the band (music?). Being the outspoken type, I told him that Islam and Christianity are very different, but that's as far as I got before the band cranked up again.

Always On Watch said...

Mark,
Use your wonderful and precise vocabulary. "Immiscible" fits!

My students frequently tell me that I use "such big words," but they learn those words because they are exposed to them.

I love that German proverb!

Mark said...

Thanks, Mussolini! I'm raising you a "sanguine", too!